Re: No longer supporting Unixware / Open Server

From: Brian (brian_at_stanley-park.com)
Date: 01/31/04 

Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:06:50 GMT

J. L. Schilling wrote:
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote in message
>> Perhaps when SCOG is dissolved we can once again look to our cousins in
>> the closed source Unix community with a little more sympathy and
>> understanding but at the moment you guys are persona non grata.

> So you're saying that some open source projects are going to drop support
> for all closed source Unixes, including Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc.? Cool!

By "you guys" I meant you SCO keeners.

While you are actively supporting SCO and propping up their renegade
organization you should consider yourselves contagious lepers.

> The point I'm trying to make is, open source means "open", it doesn't
> mean "open except for all the platforms the maintainers don't approve
> of today". If it starts to mean the latter, game over.

Anybody is welcome to deploy open source software and change it to their
hearts content - that is the nature of open source. However, when you
distribute open source software, many times you must abide by the
conditions as stated by a license like the GPL. If you don't agree with the
GPL, you do not have a license to distribute GPLed software - simple as
that.

So, while the GPL will not prevent SCOG from using Linux as it's webserver
platform, the GPL does not permit distributing GPLed software with
additional licensing conditions.

SCO continues to distribute the Linux kernel and continues to attempt to
enforce additional license requirements.

Therefore, SCO is in violation of the GPL and is distributing the Linux
kernel without a license from the copyright owners. SCO is stealing from
the open source community and specifically from the Linux kernel project.

When, and I mean 'when', SCOG is crushed like a bug and it's assets are
being fought over by the insider creditors, you guys are going to drift
away to more appropriate and deserving operating systems and will be
welcomed back to the open source community, if you wish.

People like Brian White may need a little counseling but he is young and he
will come around. Tony will continue to root for SCO refusing to face the
reality that SCO never had any evidence. Tony will proclaim to all who will
listen; "SCO is entitled to protect their property" After a while people
will stop listening.

Brian

Relevant Pages

  • Re: FC4 or FC5
    ... Reread the Qt license, Peter. ... your source code to the open source community in accordance with the ... GPL when your application is distributed." ... I'll BUY OpenSource software ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Devastating ruling against SCO
    ... > IBM could be 30 days away from making a motion for a summary judgment. ... > x86 field than anything SCO could offer. ... >> under license. ... Release it without royalties or cost, like a GPL. ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)
  • Re: GUI goodness for your Mouse and Keyboard programming
    ... source and non open source code in ways that aren't infringing on the ... orignial open source license. ... Note that they mention the GPL. ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: TCP/ IP, USB stacks and ThreadX
    ... copyright laws to enforce its license, which restricts your use of the GPL'ed code and generated binaries - you are obliged to provide the source code of all code directly linked with the GPL'ed code, under the same GPL license. ... BTW the license for the source code in question is less than one page. ... People complain publicly about the GPL, because it can make a difference - complaints have helped shape the GPL, and influence the choice of licence in open source projects. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • The IBM, Redhat, FSF, criminal case against SCO for GPL and copyright violation
    ... the case against SCO is: SCO distributed Linux ... code that was covered by the GPL. ... without a license, SCO either broke the law or accepted the license. ...
    (alt.os.linux)